Pages

Monday, December 03, 2007

Is there sex in heaven?

Christian theologians and Bible scholars generally answer this question in the negative. And they do so because of Mt 22:23-33 and its synoptic parallels (Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-40). Here’s a representative statement:

“Procreation belongs to earthly not to heavenly life where there is no birth, growth, or death. Marriage, as the institution within which earthly procreation is set, is therefore out of place…People in heaven will be like the angels, who do not marry or procreate because they are eternal” (R. T. France).

But it seems to me that the standard interpretation doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The cultural mandate (Gen 1:28) supplies the original rationale for marriage. This is a prelapsarian ordinance. It doesn’t presuppose human mortality.

Marriage, per se, is not a stopgap for human morality. It’s not as if Adam and Eve would have remained childless had they never sinned. It would be pointless for God to create a male and female pair in the first place if, in an unfallen world, there were to be no children. In that event, it would make more sense for God to create an immoral, sexless species.

Human mortality no doubt makes procreation necessary for the perpetuation of the human race. But in the Biblical theology of marriage, mortality is not a prerequisite of the matrimony. Rather, Adam and Eve, along with their posterity, were to procreate because that was a means of exercising dominion over the earth.

What this interpretation loses sight of is the fact that Jesus and the Sadducees aren’t discussing marriage in general, but levirate marriage in particular. Now levirate marriage, in distinction to marriage in general, does assume a postlapsarian state of affairs. If a husband dies without leaving a male heir to provide for his widow and maintain the lines of inheritance, levirate marriage takes up the slack.

Remember, too, that this was a tribal culture in which the land was held in common by one’s respective clan. To pass out of the clan was to pass out of one’s hereditary livelihood.

So when Jesus speaks of the abolition of marriage in the final state, this presumably refers back to levirate marriage, or the functional equivalent thereof. That’s how the question was framed. So, absent some indication to the contrary, that’s how the answer is framed. He is answering the Sadducees on their own terms.

Another problem with France’s statement is that it fails to distinguish between the intermediate state and the final state. If we equate “heaven” with the intermediate state, then that is a discarnate state. In that situation, procreation is physically impossible since there is no body. (In principle, a disembodied soul could still entertain the equivalent of an erotic dream.)

But the final state of man is a reembodied state, due to the general resurrection. And Jesus himself, at the time he spoke, would soon be the archetype and prototype of glorification.

We don’t have much experience with the glorified body, but we have a paradigm-case in Jesus. In reference to his humanity, he was anatomically a male human being (e.g. Lk 2:21-23). He was put to death as a man, and he was raised to life as a man. His digestive system was intact (Lk 24:41-43). And he bore the scars of his Passion (Jn 20:27).

This indicates a high degree of physical continuity between his mortal body and his immortal body. The presumption is that he retained his primary and secondary sexual characteristics. And I assume he had the hormones to go with the plumbing. So what is true for him presumably holds true for glorified men and women.

Because we have so little revelation about the details of the afterlife, there are many more questions than answers. However, we need to give the right answers to those questions we can answer. And that queues us up to ask the right follow-up questions, whether or not we can answer them here and now.

Anonymous said:---For example, would it be the case that one would not have sexual desire until the moment you were married to the person?---

There seem to be two competing presuppositions at work in your question. On the one hand, the question presupposes that sexual desire is itself inherently wrong. However, on the other hand, it also presupposes that there is good sexual desire (i.e., the kind found in marriage).

Steve's written some on this topic before, but I'll chip in my own $0.02 too. Sexual desire is not itself immoral; however, immoral people will have immoral sexual desires too.

It might be helpful to examine a less passionate (no pun intended) arena first. Take hunger for instance. We know that we must eat in order to survive, and hunger by itself is not immoral. But gluttons may feel hungry all the time, and that hunger is not moral.

Sexual desire is not sinful just because sinners often have sexual desires. It is important to keep the distinction, although it is quite easy to slip into immoral sexual desires (especially in our culture, which flaunts it so carelessly).

Anonymous said:---What is the differentiating factor between sexual desire, per se, and an immoral sexual desire?---

Well, since I am a Divine Command Theorist, I simply say: "That which God declares immoral is immoral." I know that doesn't seem a very appealing answer to many. But God has given us Scripture for a reason, and the Bible doesn't have any qualms about going into details about what is permissible and what is not.

God designed human beings as sexual beings. This is not the sole purpose of humanity, anymore than the fact that God designed us with the ability to eat food means eating is all we are meant to do. But because God designed us, He sets the rules and puts up the boundaries and decrees that which is acceptable to Him and that which is not.

The clearest example we have of immoral sexual desire is found in the form of lust. Sadly, many equate all sexual desire with lust, but this ought not be the case. (Indeed, just read Song of Solomon and you'll see this isn't the case.)

Again, Steve's written some posts on this topic and you can do a search for them. I'd recommend it.

Their question wasn't "will there be levirate marriage in heaven?" Their question was "whose wife will she be since she was married to 7 dudes successively?" If your view were correct, then Jesus simply answered the wrong question. If there will be marriage, but not levirate marriage in heaven, then rather than saying "there will be NO marriage" Jesus would have simply answered "she will be the first man's wife."

Their question wasn't "will there be levirate marriage in heaven?" Their question was "whose wife will she be since she was married to 7 dudes successively?" If your view were correct, then Jesus simply answered the wrong question. If there will be marriage, but not levirate marriage in heaven, then rather than saying "there will be NO marriage" Jesus would have simply answered "she will be the first man's wife."

********************************************

You'e being ignorant and simple-minded, as usual. No, they didn't use the term "levirate" marriage. Rather, they alluded to the custom of levirate marriage. Every Jewish reader of Matthew and every Jew in the audience of the original debate would understand the levirate presupposition underlying the discussion.

And that, in turn, controls the subsequent reference to "no marriage."

You have also done absolutely nothing to address the other aspects of my argument, e.g. Gen 1:28.

EM asked me, so I'll point it out. I'm not trying to debate with you on this one.

1) I think we would find that the majority Reformed view would be that there is no marriage at all in heaven.

2) I don't think most people would consider that Jesus' resurrection body should be understood to be in the same class as our general resurrection bodies, but to be more similar to Lazarus (first for him) resurrection body. I've thought about that aspect before, but it really would seem to be odd: will the tougher of the martyrs by fire show up mostly crispy? Will the elect infants lack patellas? Will the old men with Alzhiemer's have scarred brains? It seems to follow that our bodies will be restored and perfected in a way unlike Jesus' body was. And I do think that such is probably the majority Reformed position.

3) While its hard to exclude the interpretation that Jesus was saying that levirite marriage will not longer occur in heaven, that's really not the most natural (to this reader's eye) way to read the text. Furthermore, the best way to exclude that view seems to be to state that Jesus' comments wouldn't really answer the objection. Ok, no more levirite marriages (because no one dies in heaven), but whose wife is she?

The general answer: there is no institution of marriage in heaven - seems to be a more natural reading of the text, and does answer the objection.

4) Anyhow, I agree with the most important point: "Because we have so little revelation about the details of the afterlife, there are many more questions than answers. However, we need to give the right answers to those questions we can answer. And that queues us up to ask the right follow-up questions, whether or not we can answer them here and now."

I mention the "majority Reformed position" above for the benefit of folks like EM, who may assume that everything you excellent folks here at Triablogue say is necessarily the standard "Calvinist" thing. I shouldn't have to point it out, but there is a lot of diversity on things other than soteriology with "Calvinism."

I guess the problem I have with this is that our Lord does, as you mentioned, say that we will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Are you saying, then, that there is a possibility that there will be sex between unmarried people? This sounds immoral to me, but I don't see how it could be any other way if you say there will be sex in heaven, b/c we know for sure there will not be marriage.

If there will be marriage, but not levirate marriage in heaven, then rather than saying "there will be NO marriage" Jesus would have simply answered "she will be the first man's wife."

************************

Which misses the point. Jesus answers their question by challenging the presupposition of their question. The rationale for levirate marriage is mooted by the nature of the general resurrection (or at least the resurrection of the just).

“I guess the problem I have with this is that our Lord does, as you mentioned, say that we will neither marry nor be given in marriage.”

Hi, Josh. Nice to see you drop in.

No, that is not what I said. Let’s stick with the Matthean version of the exchange for the ease of reference. What I specifically said is that 22:30 refers back, not to marriage in general, but to the custom of *levirate* marriage in particular—since v24 is a direct allusion to levirate marriage, and the hypothetical in v25 builds on that presupposition. So that controls the scope of v30—unless we have textual or contextual indications to the contrary.

“Are you saying, then, that there is a possibility that there will be sex between unmarried people? This sounds immoral to me, but I don't see how it could be any other way if you say there will be sex in heaven, b/c we know for sure there will not be marriage.

Several problems:

i) You seem to be subconsciously mapping your own interpretation onto mine, then drawing invidious consequences. Remember, I didn’t take the position that “we know for sure there will not be marriage.” In fact, that’s the interpretation which I explicitly challenged, for several stated reasons.

You’re welcome to offer a counterargument if you have one. But you seem to be imputing to me, albeit unintentionally, your own position—which is the very opposite of my stated position. Perhaps my interpretation is so novel to you that you haven’t entirely processed it as of yet.

ii) I didn’t say there will be sex “in heaven.” The title of my post took the form of a question. But if you go to the body of the text, you will recall that I challenged France’s interpretation of that point as well.

If there is sex in the world to come, it would apply to the final state, not the intermediate state. To the glorified saints on earth (i.e. the palingenesis).

From what I can tell, your own interpretation is blocking you from even registering the details of my stated position, and the supporting arguments thereof. I’d suggest that you go back through it a second time and pay me a return visit if you have any follow-up questions.

“Steve, EM asked me, so I'll point it out. I'm not trying to debate with you on this one. 1) I think we would find that the majority Reformed view would be that there is no marriage at all in heaven.”

i) Maybe so, maybe not. I really don't care. That’s not an exegetical objection. It’s irrelevant to the meaning of the text.

ii) We also need to distinguish between Reformed essentials or Reformed distinctives and what the majority of Reformed theologians happen to believe about something that has no logical bearing on Reformed theology, per se.

“I don't think most people would consider that Jesus' resurrection body should be understood to be in the same class as our general resurrection bodies, but to be more similar to Lazarus (first for him) resurrection body.”

i) What is your evidence for that statistical claim?

ii) Paul, in 1 Cor 15, makes the resurrection of Christ the explicit paradigm for the resurrection of the just.

iii) Are you saying that Lazarus never died? Do you subscribe to the Assumption of Lazarus? :-)

iv) What textual evidence do you have that the body of Lazarus was “perfected”?

“I've thought about that aspect before, but it really would seem to be odd: will the tougher of the martyrs by fire show up mostly crispy? Will the elect infants lack patellas? Will the old men with Alzhiemer's have scarred brains? It seems to follow that our bodies will be restored and perfected in a way unlike Jesus' body was.”

The degree of superficial physical continuity may well be related to the degree to which the mortal body suffered decay. In Jesus’ case, his corpse would have undergone very little necrosis given the short timespan between death and resurrection. It is quite different in the case of a body that has crumbled into dust.

Presumably, his wounds would heal over time. Indeed, we’d expect a glorified body to have superior recuperative powers.

“And I do think that such is probably the majority Reformed position.”

When I exegete Scripture, I don’t begin by asking myself, “What is the majority Reformed position”? There’s no point in even going through the motions if we begin with what we take to be “the majority Reformed position,” peremptorily disqualify all other interpretive options, and shape our “exegesis” to yield that foregone conclusion. Unless Reformed theology emerges from the text of Scripture, it is unscriptural.

“While its hard to exclude the interpretation that Jesus was saying that levirite marriage will not longer occur in heaven, that's really not the most natural (to this reader's eye) way to read the text.”

Sorry, but appealing to the most “natural” interpretation is the way in which dispensationalists traditionally dismiss covenant theology. Poythress did a good critique of this facile appeal in Understanding Dispensationalists (chaps. 8-9).

“Furthermore, the best way to exclude that view seems to be to state that Jesus' comments wouldn't really answer the objection. Ok, no more levirite marriages (because no one dies in heaven), but whose wife is she? The general answer: there is no institution of marriage in heaven - seems to be a more natural reading of the text, and does answer the objection.”

Depends on how you think Jesus should answer the objection. As I’m sure you know, Jesus has a habit of not answering questions directly. Rather, he typically questions the underlying presupposition of the question.

Sorry I wasn't very clear in my last post. I should have said that, as arguments listed above in the comments mentioned, our Lord seems to not talk about only Levirate marriage, but marriage in general. I also agree with you that it must not apply to the intermediate state, since our Lord does tell us that "at the resurrection" there will be no marrying or giving in marriage. But, I admit that our gender will certainly be retained, so our Lord cannot merely mean that being like the angels will make us "genderless." Perhaps we should ask what our Lord means when he ties in the idea of the fact that we will be "like the angels in heaven."

Nikki said...Prove it. In other words, prove it from the verse. Otherwise, accept the fact that an aging body is a perfect body.

Or to put it otherwise, your assuption is that a body too young or too old isn't perfect. That makes no sense.

****************

i) Whether *you* think something make sense is irrelevant to the exegesis of the relevant passages.

ii) There's also a big difference between *saying* that something makes no sense, and *showing* that something makes no sense. You're substituting a tendentious assertion for an argument. Where's the argument?

iii) I didn't use the word "perfect." I used words like "youthful," "ageless," and "immortal."

iv) I don't have to reinvent the wheel on the exegesis of 1 Cor. For starters, read Thiselton.

v) A body that grows old and dies is a mortal body. That's the antithesis of the glorified body. So, no, we don't get a series of "new bodies as needed." See (iv).

you wrote: "i) Maybe so, maybe not. I really don't care. That’s not an exegetical objection. It’s irrelevant to the meaning of the text."I answer: Of course I agree with you about that. I was just trying to help EM understand that a variety of views exist within the Reformed camp.

You wrote: "ii) We also need to distinguish between Reformed essentials or Reformed distinctives and what the majority of Reformed theologians happen to believe about something that has no logical bearing on Reformed theology, per se."I answer: Fully agreed.

You wrote: "i) What is your evidence for that statistical claim?"I answer: Just my gut. If you disagree, no problem. Possibly my gut is off, and I don't mean to be dogmatic in my assertion.

You wrote: "ii) Paul, in 1 Cor 15, makes the resurrection of Christ the explicit paradigm for the resurrection of the just."I answer: Not as to the nature of the body we will receive, at least not that I see.

You wrote: "iii) Are you saying that Lazarus never died? Do you subscribe to the Assumption of Lazarus? :-)"

I answer: No, Lazarus died twice (one of the few exceptions to the "once to die" general statement). He was first raised about 3 days after he died, and will be raised again on the last day.

You wrote: "iv) What textual evidence do you have that the body of Lazarus was “perfected”?"I answer: I don't. I don't think it was. Just as I don't think Christ's was before his ascension.

You wrote: "The degree of superficial physical continuity may well be related to the degree to which the mortal body suffered decay." I answer: We're just speculating here, right? As you noted at the end of your post, there's lots of questions that are just not answered in Scripture.

You wrote: "In Jesus’ case, his corpse would have undergone very little necrosis given the short timespan between death and resurrection." I answer: I'm sure we could get some CSI folks to give us an estimate on that.

You wrote: "It is quite different in the case of a body that has crumbled into dust."I answer: Agreed ... Or been burnt to ashes and scattered to the four winds, or eaten by cannibals.

You wrote: "Presumably, his wounds would heal over time. Indeed, we’d expect a glorified body to have superior recuperative powers."I answer: I wouldn't expect our glorified bodies to be capable of being damaged. But that's just me. File under "the Bible does not tell us."

You wrote: "When I exegete Scripture, I don’t begin by asking myself, “What is the majority Reformed position”? There’s no point in even going through the motions if we begin with what we take to be “the majority Reformed position,” peremptorily disqualify all other interpretive options, and shape our “exegesis” to yield that foregone conclusion. Unless Reformed theology emerges from the text of Scripture, it is unscriptural."I answer: I completely agree.

You wrote: "Sorry, but appealing to the most “natural” interpretation is the way in which dispensationalists traditionally dismiss covenant theology."I answer: Oh, well if dispys do it, it MUST be wrong. :)

You wrote: "Poythress did a good critique of this facile appeal in Understanding Dispensationalists (chaps. 8-9)."I answer: If I ever read that, I don't recall what he wrote. It is a facile appeal (i.e. saying that something is "the more natural reading"), though. If I was trying to debate this with you, I'd certainly feel compelled to offer more that that.

You wrote: "Depends on how you think Jesus should answer the objection."I answer: I think you're wrong about that. I think the objection would still stand with your explanation.

You wrote: "As I’m sure you know, Jesus has a habit of not answering questions directly." I answer: Agreed. In fact, I think this is an example of that.

You wrote: "Rather, he typically questions the underlying presupposition of the question."I answer: That's the way to answer loaded questions, yes? And those were typically the questions he was given. This is an example, as I think we both agree.

“Not as to the nature of the body we will receive, at least not that I see.”

For exegetical reasons, I disagree. 1 Cor 15 is very much concerned with the nature of the glorified body (although we must make allowance for his use of metaphors) as well as the paradigmatic role of Christ’s glorified body in relation to the resurrection of the just.

“No, Lazarus died twice (one of the few exceptions to the ‘once to die’ general statement). He was first raised about 3 days after he died, and will be raised again on the last day.”

In which case that would be a radical resuscitation rather than glorification. The glorified body is immortal—whether in reference to the Resurrection of Christ or the resurrection of the just (and, arguably, the general resurrection, of which the resurrection of the just is a subset).

“I wouldn't expect our glorified bodies to be capable of being damaged.”

For reasons I gave in my critical review of TET, I disagree. I regard the glorified body as ageless and immune to disease. But I don’t regard it as indestructible. For example, I don’t think our skin will be made of asbestos to render us fireproof.

But in the providence of God, fatal or disfiguring or life-threatening accidents won’t happen in the age to come. The miraculous survival of Daniel’s friends in the fiery furnace is analogous.

“I think you're wrong about that. I think the objection would still stand with your explanation.”

If Jesus had wanted to answer them directly, he could have told the Sadducees that her first husband was her true husband since the conventional designation of levirate “marriage” is something of a misnomer—for the brother of the deceased husband doesn’t actually wed his widow. Rather, he simply performs his duty as next-of-kin to “raise up seed.” But Jesus wants to make a larger point.

You wrote: "For exegetical reasons, I disagree. 1 Cor 15 is very much concerned with the nature of the glorified body (although we must make allowance for his use of metaphors) as well as the paradigmatic role of Christ’s glorified body in relation to the resurrection of the just."I answer: Well, I'll frankly admit that my conclusion is based on a very cursory reading. Perhaps I am wrong. I haven't seen a detailed exegesis that has persuaded me to suppose that the chapter is saying something to the effect of "the nature of our resurrection bodies will be similar to (or the same as) the nature of Christ's resurrection body." Perhaps I just need to get myself a better commentary on the passage!

You wrote: "In which case that would be a radical resuscitation rather than glorification."I answer: Ok, I guess. My original point was that Christ's preascension body was like Lazarus' pre-second-death body, rather than like Christ's body at present or our bodies after the resurrection.

You wrote: "The glorified body is immortal—whether in reference to the Resurrection of Christ or the resurrection of the just (and, arguably, the general resurrection, of which the resurrection of the just is a subset)."I answer: Yes, of course. Immortal certainly. I'm not sure that Jesus' resurrection (pre-ascension) body was intrinsicly immortal. Jesus, for example, still ate food.

You wrote: "For reasons I gave in my critical review of TET, I disagree. I regard the glorified body as ageless and immune to disease. But I don’t regard it as indestructible. For example, I don’t think our skin will be made of asbestos to render us fireproof. But in the providence of God, fatal or disfiguring or life-threatening accidents won’t happen in the age to come. The miraculous survival of Daniel’s friends in the fiery furnace is analogous."I answer: The analogy would seem to be more directed toward glorified bodies that are intrinsicly immortal, to those that are simply providentially preserved (the better analogy for you would seem to be Daniel himself in the lion's den). Perhaps an even better analogy for me would be the hypothetical outcome of Adam eating fromt he tree of life in the garden.

You wrote: "If Jesus had wanted to answer them directly, he could have told the Sadducees that her first husband was her true husband since the conventional designation of levirate “marriage” is something of a misnomer—for the brother of the deceased husband doesn’t actually wed his widow."I answer: If that's true ... ok.

You wrote: "Rather, he simply performs his duty as next-of-kin to “raise up seed.”"I answer: As you may be aware, those are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But I don't think it matters.

You wrote: "But Jesus wants to make a larger point."I answer: I agree.

The larger point (from a sufficiently high abstraction) is that the resurrection is real. It's the counterpoint to the larger point on account of which the Sadducees asked the question.

At a slightly lower level, the larger point was that marriage is only for this life. When your spouse is dead, the marriage is over. Your spouse in a marriageless place.

"Which misses the point. Jesus answers their question by challenging the presupposition of their question. The rationale for levirate marriage is mooted by the nature of the general resurrection (or at least the resurrection of the just)." (Steve)

I think you are missing the point. Again, their question was not whether there will be levirate marriage in heaven, but whose wife this woman would be who was involved in numerous levirate marriages on earth. Will she still be married to any of these guys? Your position seems to be that Jesus said she would not be married to any of those men, yet that she might marry another man once she gets to heaven. But that ain't what he said.

"I think you are missing the point. Again, their question was not whether there will be levirate marriage in heaven, but whose wife this woman would be who was involved in numerous levirate marriages on earth.' Will she still be married to any of these guys?"

It's a pity you're incapable of following the train of thought, but that deficiency would go a long ways in explaining your deficient theology.

The question in Mt 22:28 flows from the hypothetical in 25-27, which is—in turn—predicated on levirate marriage in 24, and attempts, for the sake of argument (i.e. in order to disprove the resurrection of the just) to extend that custom into the afterlife.

"Your position seems to be that Jesus said she would not be married to any of those men."

I still say you are missing that the question was if a woman had multiple husbands ON EARTH, whose wife would she be IN HEAVEN. Jesus' answer was nobody's because there ain't any marriage in heaven. But you are wanting to make it as though Jesus said, why are you asking me about whose wife she will be when there is no levirite marriage in heaven? Which makes Jesus look stupid for answering the wrong question.

Nikki said:Steve:"i) Whether *you* think something make sense is irrelevant to the exegesis of the relevant passages."

Oh what a riot! After your pompus series of assertions you say something like that! The comparison was made between Christ's body while on earth and our glorified bodies.

Sheesh! Then you claim you know the age of glorified bodies and they way they function? LOL!!

*******************

For someone who is touchy about his IQ, you're not doing a very good job of projecting high IQ. So I'll try to spell it out for you.

There's a difference between whether a text "makes sense" in terms an interpretation that is true to the meaning of the text, and whether it "makes sense" in terms of whether a given reader happens to think what it means is logical or viable.

Alice in Wonderland can make perfect sense at a semantic level even if it makes no sense at a physical or metaphysical level.

From a Christian standpoint, the Bible “makes sense” in both respects. However, interpretation doesn’t begin with our extrascriptural preconceptions about what is possible or not.

If you're still too dense to figure out the distinction I'm drawing for you, I can break it down into even smaller baby steps to accommodate your intellectual impediments.

It would only look stupid to a stupid disputant like you who is too stupid to appreciate the fact that Jesus reserves the right—which he frequently exercises—to reorient a question if it is predicated on a faulty assumption. Jesus often answers the question the speaker should ask, not the question he did ask. That's because people often ask the wrong questions. So their underlying assumptions need to be corrected, and their question redirected. Indeed, this very pericope is a case in point.

OK thanks. Do you think that passages like Isaiah 11:8, 65:20-23 might lend additional support to there being sex in the resurrection (viz seeming descriptions of childbearing and babies - thus presumably sex - in the eschaton)? Or should these be understood only figuratively?

They may well be figurative (to some extent). However, it has a basis in fact. You really did have eunuchs. So there's a literal principle which a figurative interpretation alone can't do justice to. How does the final state address the real deficit referred to here, on the part of eunuchs, infertile couples, &c.?

OK that's encouraging. Would the eschatological recompense for eunuchs (at least those contemporaneous with Isaiah) not be addressed in Isaiah 56:3-5? Their problem seemed to be that their name would be forgotten (more so than their inability to have children?).

There are several examples of God recompensing childless couples with children who grew to become great (Sarah, Manoah, Hannah, Elizabeth). Job had children and fortune restored. Is there enough of a theme here to suggest the possibility that infertile couples in this life who want children will be recompensed with them in the next? If so, this would then be very indirect (although probably tenuous) support for there being sex in the resurrection. I'd like to know your thoughts, if you have anymore.

Passages like Isaiah 49:21 or Isaiah 54:1ff might also speak more to the eschatological recompense of the infertile, but these passages are probably talking about Israel.